Charlotte Observer
2.27.06
Navy's fishy research
Pentagon isn't taking 'hard look' at N.C. environment
Editorial
Correction:The following correction ran on Wednesday, March 1, 2006: A Sunday editorial on the effect of sonar training operations on whales off the N.C. coast should have attributed comments about the Navy's research to Michelle Nowlin of the Southern Environmental Law Center.
What is it with the Navy? When the Navy wanted a new practice jet landing field for carrier operations, it picked a spot it liked in northeastern North Carolina and said there would be no significant environmental damage.
But a federal judge looked at the record, asked for an explanation and then ruled the Navy had not followed federal law mandating a "hard look" at environmental impacts of jet operations on the nearby Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Now the Pentagon is taking another look at the hazards of flying so close to potentially hundreds of thousands of large migratory waterfowl that occupy the refuge for up to six months of the year. You'd have thought the Navy would learn its lesson.
And you'd be wrong. Says who? Says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which recently issued a critical report taking issue with the Navy's plan for an underwater sonar training range off the N.C. coast. NOAA said the Navy underestimated the hazard of sonar operations on whales and other ocean life, failed to consider the possibility that mid-range sonar might kill whales and suggested the Navy badly miscalculated how much noise whales can endure. The Navy used an allowable noise standard 100 times louder than the maximum allowable standard NOAA recommends.
Environmental groups have criticized the Navy's conclusion that sonar training programs would have only minimal impact on whales and other ocean animal life. Scientists and government officials are examining the cause of whale strandings and deaths, including one group stranding on the Outer Banks last year where more than three dozen whales died. Many scientists believe sonar operations were a direct cause of those incidents.
There is considerable evidence that the Navy's studies lack credibility. The Navy not only failed to adequately study the effect on whales, dolphins, seals, manatees and endangered loggerhead turtles, says the Southern Environmental Law Center, but also botched its assessment of how many of these creatures move through the proposed 660-square mile range about 40 miles off the coast.
Michelle Duval, a marine biologist for the center, said the Navy's conclusions "are unsupported by scientific study," that the Navy "did little to survey the very environment in which it proposes to conduct sensitive - and potentially harmful - military operations" and that its assessment was "devoid of evidence of any serious effort to analyze cumulative impacts."
That's inexcusable. But as we've learned from the Navy's research on its proposed outlying landing field, it's hardly unprecedented. Before the Navy further embarrasses itself, it should withdraw its flawed environmental impact statement and start over.
